Connecticut Should Give Young Offenders 'Second Look'

January 12, 2015

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized — for the third time in the past decade — that adolescents are not fully formed adults. Teenagers can be immature and impetuous, and fail to appreciate risks and consequences, the court rightly observed in Miller v. Alabama. But they can and do change, mature, grow up.

Unforgivable: The Governor and the Teen-Ager

By Evan Osnos

January 8, 2015

Bob McDonnell, the disgraced ex-governor of Virginia, appealed for the mercy of the court, and he received it. A former Presidential prospect with a career in state politics, McDonnell, along with his wife, Maureen, was convicted in September of trading the powers of his office for loans, shopping sprees, golf trips, a Rolex, and use of a Ferrari and a country home—a pattern that unfolded in the course of eleven months, netting his family a range of pleasures worth a hundred and seventy-seven thousand dollars, until federal prosecutors took notice.

Federal sentencing guidelines called for ten to twelve years. Michael Dry, an assistant United States attorney who prosecuted the case, called the series of abuses “unprecedented in Virginia’s two-hundred-and-twenty-six-year history,” and sought six and a half years. McDonnell’s defense attorneys asked for no prison time. They proposed instead six thousand hours of community service and in court presented eleven witnesses, including another former governor and an N.F.L. star, who argued for leniency.

Read More 

Prosecuting preteens as adults defies logic

By Christopher Moraff

January 7, 2015

In October, Pennsylvania began a mandatory prosecution of a 10-year-old boy as an adult for murder — a prosecution illegal in any other developed nation and in all but one other U.S. state. On Jan. 5, a judge granted a petition from the boy’s attorney to move the case to juvenile court, where it clearly belongs. The fact that adjudication did not begin there reveals an underappreciated but critical flaw in the way U.S. courts deal with children who commit crime.

To be sure, the particulars of the crime are shocking, all the more so when you consider a child who only recentlycompleted fourth grade allegedly committed it.

Read More 

Juvenile injustice: The ruling on mandatory life should be retroactive

January 7, 2015

The Supreme Court moved the nation’s justice system forward in 2012 by ruling that mandatory life sentences for juveniles violated the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That, however, did notdetermine whether the prohibition on such sentences shouldapply retroactively to 2,000 juvenile lifers nationwide.

Juveniles are far more impulsive than adults — as every parent knows — and less equipped to grasp the consequences of their actions. Moreover, no judge or jury can predict what a 15-year-old convicted of murder will become at the age of 35, 45 or 55.

Read More 

Juvenile injustice: The high court should make its ruling that abolished mandatory life sentences for juveniles retroactive

January 2, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court justices moved the nation’s justice system forward in 2012 by ruling that mandatory life sentences for juveniles violated the Constitution’s 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That decision, however, did not determine whether the prohibition on such sentences should apply retroactively to more than 2,000 juvenile lifers nationwide, including nearly 350 in Michigan.

The high court’s omission has created confusion around the country. It has enabled states such as Michigan to continue to enforce unjust and irrational laws.

Michigan’s juvenile lifer law defied science, public opinion, and common sense. Children don’t have the same legal rights and responsibilities as adults, because they lack the maturity and judgment to handle them. Nor should courts hold them equally culpable.

Read More

Year after Obama-ordered prison release, ex-drug dealer finds career

By Annie Sweeney

January 1, 2015

One year ago, Reynolds Wintersmith had just finished his morning workout and was preparing to take his cool-down lap in the prison yard when — over the music playing in his MP3 player — he faintly heard his name over the loudspeaker.

Sentenced to life in federal prison in 1994 for drug-dealing when he was a teenager, Wintersmith spent much of his days working on bettering himself, buoyed by the hope he’d someday be freed.

After hearing his name paged, Wintersmith made his way to the warden’s office and waited. A phone call for him was coming, staff told him. Minutes later he was speaking with his attorney, who told him President Barack Obama had commuted his sentence: “He did it,” Wintersmith heard on the other end of the phone. “He signed your paperwork. You are coming home.”

Read More 

Repeal of mandatory life sentences for minors should be retroactive

December 19, 2014

The Supreme Court made the right call two years ago when it found unconstitutional state laws mandating a life sentence without parole for minors convicted of grievous crimes. But in that decision, Miller vs. Alabama, the court left unresolved a crucial detail: Did the decision apply only to future cases, or did it extend to minors already serving life sentences? The court now has a chance toanswer that question and to complete this important act of justice and decency by making the ruling retroactive.

The current case involves George Toca of Louisiana, who had just turned 17 in 1984 when, police said, he accidentally shot and killed an accomplice during a robbery. Toca maintains that someone else killed his friend (the Innocence Project has taken on the case), but that’s not the key issue in the appeal. After 30 years behind bars, Toca argues that he’s a different person than the child who was imprisoned in 1985 and that the Miller ruling means he should be able to offer mitigating evidence at a new sentencing hearing. Unsurprisingly, the state of Louisiana disagrees.

Read More

James Bell and Bart Lubow encourage broad view of issues impacting sentencing

We were honored to be joined this year by keynote speakers James Bell, founder, executive director & board president of the W. Haywood Burns Institute, and Bart Lubow, consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation and former director of their Juvenile Justice Strategy Group, who provided insights and reflections about how we got to the point of imposing extreme sentences upon children, and disproportionately on children of color.

Lubow noted in his comments during the opening plenary that life without parole is the most egregious example of the ways that our justice system fails the “my child” test. The “my child” test calls upon system leaders and policymakers to ask themselves whether they would want our current policies to apply to their own children if they came into conflict with the law. Where our policies and practices fail this test, there is a clear need for reform.

Lubow drew from his decades of experience with the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, also known as JDAI, which focuses on diverting children from detention and improving outcomes for our most vulnerable youth.

Bell was the keynote speaker for the session on the role and history of race in our juvenile sentencing practices. His remarks were consistent with Lubow’s in that he noted that there are no easy answers to dealing with the long-term problem of disparate prosecution and sentencing of children.

Bell said life without parole for children is the most extreme example of the way that our country has implemented polices that have negated childhood for black youth, insisted on harsh punishment, and focused on retribution rather than rehabilitation. As a result, structural racism is one of the challenges that we must face head on in our effort to bring meaningful and lasting reforms.

Lubow encouraged people who seek change to prepare to work for the long haul. Change will come, he said, but stamina is necessary because these complicated and entrenched issues won’t be resolved quickly but will require sustained, dedicated work.

A Shooter, His Victim and Race

By Nicholas Kristof

December 13, 2014

TAMPA, Fla. — IAN MANUEL is a black man who has spent most of his life in prison. Yet he still has a most unusual advocate calling for his release: a white woman whom he met when he shot her in the face.

Manuel fired the bullet when he was barely 13, and he fit all too neatly into racial stereotypes, especially that of the black predator who had to be locked away forever. One of the greatest racial disparities in America is in the justice system, and fear of young black criminals like Manuel helped lead to mass incarceration policies that resulted in a sixfold increase in the number of Americans in prison after 1970. Yet, as his one-time victim points out (speaking with a reconstructed jaw), it’s complicated.

Read More

Supreme Court will hear case involving life sentences without parole for juveniles

By Robert Barnes

December 12, 2014

The Supreme Court said Friday that it will decide whether hundreds of juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole deserve a chance to be resentenced.

The court announced it will consider the case of a Louisiana man who said the court’s 2012 decision banning mandatory life sentences for juveniles must be applied retroactively.

The 5-to-4 ruling in Miller v. Alabama said that state laws mandating life in prison without the possibility of parole for those younger than 18 offend the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. That decision was part of a trend at the court of treating even the worst juvenile offenders differently from adults.

“Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features — among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the 2012 decision. “It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him — and from which he cannot usually extricate himself — no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.”

Read More